1.

What are major causes, debates, contents and impacts of the 1990s political reform
and the 1997 constitution to the Thai politics? How did they pave the way to the
Thaksin regime and the Thai Rak Thai party to rise in power?
Reformations of Thai decentralization were mostly initiated throughout the 1980s and
early 1990s. Firstly, some minor changes are included in the initial reforms of the local
institutions and increase remarkably in the e increase in the local authoritys revenue sharing.
Despite to these fledgling reforms, the attempt of the government is without serious
renegotiation on the arrangements of centre-local until the leading up period of the 1997
constitution promulgation. In general, these strongly political efforts and the fiscal
decentralization are attributed by previous Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai's in his first
administration (1992-1995). In that period of time, Thailands socio-economic and political
situation in common had turned into the decentralization favor. The economic development of
Thailand from 1960s had lessen the fear perceived that the cultural diversity will endanger
the national integration. On the ethnic minorities aspect, the views had shifted from the
issues of national security during the cold war to decentralization and the issue of livelihood
in 1990s. Assumingly, the more willing of minorities were to identify the nation-state of Thai
since there are more for them to obtain economically. Moreover, after the cold war ended,
there was the less of threat from communism to the national security. Additionally, the
collapse of the central planed economies in the prior Eastern Bloc prompted a trend of
demands for more political participation by citizens in Thailand as well. There are two
reasons for beginning the decentralization as following:
1. The economic development and the extent of democratic ideas through the country
that mentioned previously can be implied that much of the citizenry had developed more
intensely aware of their rights and therefore demanded more political participation.
2. It was pointed out that the decentralization agenda was mostly been inspired by the
lobbying and political act of emergent organizations of civil society, which noticed it as an
intention to rise transparency and responsibility in government and overcome the power of
corrupt national politicians and bureaucrats. These groups of civil society found associates,
however, in the indigenous political bosses who expected to advantage from more native
autonomy and control over resources delivered to localities by the domestic government.
Secondly, and as importance as the need to enhance democracy, this was the country
leaders recognition on that the central government could not solve every of provincial

problems in Thailand if there is no substantial centre-local relations alteration and the

fundamental problematic rethinking in facing with the local governments. At last, an abortive
prodemocracy demonstrators but very brutal crackdown in 1992 had not only assisted the
expectations concertize on the common population in regard of economical and political
reform, but it had also compelled most of all the key political parties in the national election
campaign of 1992 to embrace the electoral platforms that promising to advance
decentralization via the local elections and sub national fiscal autonomy establishment.
However, this does not imply the political partys mainstream that were convinced by the
decentralization polices and genuinely supported on this objective. In place, the against the
military dictatorship and a corollary democracy support in widespread popular hatred just
simply left the politicians with all stripes a little choice rather than to cater for the electorate
by the decentralization Constitution endorsing in 1997 and a 1999 Decentralization Act. Both
had specified the ambitious governmental structures decentralization program. In the next
few years, the local bodies election were formed in the level of municipal, sub-district, and
provincial level, by the way the first local administration bodies so called Tambon level were
formed during 1994 after Tambon Administrative Authority Act and Tambon Council. The
decentralization process since then had formed several of local level administration outfits.
There were more than 6,700 TAOs by 1999 and the role of rural communities in TAOs are
supposed to rise and this empower them on their policy formulation and decision making.
Under this effort, many of tasks in cooperation with the personnel and budget from the
central administration have been transferred at the level of local government. The
responsibility of TAOs is related to five tasks which are:
1) Planning and development of local and community;
2) Promotion of local economic development, investment, employment, trade, and
tourism;
3) Local public services provision;
4) Social welfare services, including education, primary health care, housing, arts and
cultures, and;
5) Promotion of democratic values, civil rights, public participation, law and order,
conflict resolution.

Not only induced the decentralization but these policy reforms also the political
decentralization for example, through the shifts in local elections, the local residents were
capable to make the direct election on the local councils and head of sub district. Moreover,
other opportunities also given to the local involvement for instance, the initiations, public
hearings, and referendums that could lead to the new law adoption, or particular government
policy. Moreover, now people do have right to access into the local management practices
information and participate in the processes of procurement, as well as impeach the local
executives and representatives.
The strong forces also presented against the political decentralization and the specific
bureaucrats that attempted by the Ministry of Interior to influence on the process according to
their way. Despite the goal of laudable, too ambitious, the program was on the
decentralization degree. Too much and so tiny units of administration have been created for
example, the average Tambon cannot support for the professional administrative staff or high
school with the beginning of reform process by the Ministry of Interior to enjoy with the right
to appoint the provincial governors in oppose to the governors election.
Since the opposition to popular governors elections, purposefully, the Ministry of
Interior formed up the Provincial Administrative Organizations (PAO) and TAOs to be the
alternatives for administration. It was also suggested by Nagai (2001) that in that period, the
support from Ministry of Interior on the decentralization policies was entirely depended on
the self-serving motives where, TAOs does only appear to represent for decentralization.
However, the actual objective might be to strengthen the Ministry of Interior authority
through the governmental offices establishment on Tambon level. They may have been with
sincere intention to form many of little TAOs to bring politics close to people as much as
possible by the way; in consideration of the Ministry of Interior reluctance to give up the
power with higher sinister intention have come to mind. By forming the amount of small
units, the central agents superiority is always remained and the little TAOs myriad does not
allow that bigger players to emerge that could challenge on the relationship power of the
local-center.
It seems that the democratic decentralization is feasible and it had given sufficient
wills on political to the part of central government to remain with decentralization initiative
overtime. However, the governments have shifted and with their political agenda when the
power was on Thaksin. Since then, the decentralizing was at best and not become the topic on

his agenda. Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra came to power since 2001-2006, where he
was deposed by the military coup. The Decentralization Committee under his government
had submitted the plan for Decentralization Implementation to the Ministers Council for a
year in the wake of the legally compulsory schedule. Moreover, the strategy of Thaksin to
enhance the powers of the unelected provincial governors is with no doubt a reinterpretation
to the main centre-periphery articles in the 1997 Constitution. Beneath the new scheme, the
governors with greatly-empowered would serve as the corporate Chief Executive Officers
(CEO) will full authority of management and the final right on every local governmental
branches including personnel, budgets, and amount of assignments. No performance indices
provided to assess the CEO Governors performances. Moreover, none of prescribing
formalized on the way to select the CEO Governors. Thailand was apparently centralizing
during its decentralizing, and at the same period, for the first time in the history Thaksin
recognized the pastoral electorate as doable voters.
Thus, despite the more authoritarian style of government, he opened the door to the
rural electorate political participation to the national level. Apparently, policy by Thaksin to
strengthen his political basis with the rural population was seen as the traditional bureaucrats
threats and other elite interests. By forming the vast political base for the rural population,
Bangkok seems to have less accountable on him on the electoral support, where the middle
class and urban elite anger on him become largely from the fear to lose the national politics
influence, though such of anxiety was more than usual guised as a unwillingness to pay for
the redistributive schemes of Thaksin for instance, the moratorium debt or universal health
care. These policies had provoked the influential elite groups, and prompting them to support
the intervention of military in 2006.